11 Oct 1992

I think the principal that separates me is that 5 and a half million people came together on their own and put me on the ballot. I was not put on the ballot by either of the 2 parties; I was not put on the ballot by any PAC money, by any foreign lobbyist money, by any special interest money. This is a movement that came from the people. This is the way the framers of the Constitution intended our government to be, a government that comes from the people. Over time we have developed a government that comes at the people, that comes from the top down, where the people are more or less treated as objects to be programmed during the campaign with commercials and media events and fear messages and personal attacks and things of that nature. The thing that separates my candidacy and makes it unique is that this came from millions of people in 50 states all over this country who wanted a candidate that worked and belonged to nobody but them. I go into this race as their servant, and I belong to them. So this comes from the people.

The most important distinction in this campaign is that I represent real hope for change, a departure from trickle-down economics, a departure from tax and spend economics, to invest in growth. But before I can do that, I must challenge the American people to change, and they must decide. Tonight I say to the President: Mr. Bush, for 12 years you've had it your way. You've had your chance and it didn't work. It's time to change. I want to bring that change to the American people. But we must all decide first we have the courage to change for hope and a better tomorrow.

Well, I think one thing that distinguishes is experience. I think we've dramatically changed the world. I'll talk about that a little bit later, but the changes are mind-boggling for world peace. Kids go to bed at night without the same fear of nuclear war. And change for change sake isn't enough. We saw that message in the late 70s when heard a lot about change, and what happened, that misery index went right through the roof. But my economic program is the kind of change we want. And the way we're going to get it done is we're going to have a brand new Congress. A lot of them are thrown out because of all the scandals. I'll sit down with them, Democrats and Republicans alike, and work for my agenda for American renewal, which represents real change. But I'd say, if you had to separate out, I think it's experience at this level.

I believe experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my state also should count for something. I've worked hard to create good jobs and to educate people. My state now ranks first in the country in job growth this year, fourth in income growth, fourth in reduction of poverty, third in overall economic performance, according to a major news magazine. That's because we believe in investing in education and in jobs. And we have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes. I've gotten a lot of good experience in dealing with ordinary people over the last year and month. I've touched more people's lives and seen more heartbreak and hope, more pain and more promise, than anybody else who's run for president this year. I think the American people deserve better than they're getting. We have gone from first to thirteenth in wages in the world in the last twelve years, since Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan have been in. Personal income has dropped while people have worked harder. In the last four years, there have been twice as many bankruptcies as new jobs created. We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant. We're living in a new world after the Cold War, and what works in this new world is not trickle down, not government for the benefit of the privileged few, not tax and spend, but a commitment to invest in American jobs and American education, controlling American health care costs, and bringing the American people together. That is what works. And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.

I just thought of another -- another big difference here between me. I don't believe Mr. Perot feels this way, but I know Governor Clinton did because I want to accurately quote him. He thinks, I think he said, that the country is coming apart at the seams. Now, I know that the only way he can win is to make everybody believe the economy's worse than it is. But this country is not coming apart at the seams, for heaven's sakes. We're the United States of America. In spite of the economic problems, we're the most respected economy around the world. Many would trade for it. We've been caught up in a global slowdown. We can do much, much better, but we ought not try to convince the American people that America is a country that's coming apart at the seams. I would hate to be running for president and think that the only way I could win would be to convince everybody how horrible things are. Yes, there are big problems, and yes, people are hurting. But I believe that this Agenda for American renewal I have is the answer to do it, and I believe we can get it done now, whereas we didn't in the past, because you're going to have a whole brand new bunch of people in the Congress that are going to have to listen to the same American people I'm listening to.

Well, they've got a point. I don't have any experience in running up a $4 trillion debt. (Laughter.) I don't have any experience in gridlock government where nobody takes responsibility for anything and everybody blames everybody else. I don't have any experience in creating the worst public school system in the industrialized world, the most violent crime-ridden society in the industrialized world.  But I do have a lot of experience in getting things done. So, if we're at a point in history where we want to stop talking about it and do it, I've got a lot of experience in figuring out how to solve problems, making the solutions work, and then moving on to the next one. I've got a lot of experience in not taking 10 years to solve a 10-minute problem. So, if it's time for action, I think I have experience that counts. If there's more time for gridlock and talk and finger pointing, I'm the wrong man.

I think the American people should be the judge of that. I think character is a very important question. I said something the other day where I was accused of being like Joe McCarthy because I questioned -- I put it this way; I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil. I just think it's wrong. I -- well, maybe they say, "Well, it was a youthful indiscretion." I was 19 or 20 flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. And I'm sorry, but demonstrating -- it's not a question of patriotism. It's a question of character and judgment. They get on me -- Bill's gotten on me about, "read my lips." When I make a mistake I'll admit it. But he has made -- not admitted a mistake and I just find it impossible to understand how an American can demonstrate against his own country in a foreign land -- organizing demonstrations against it when young men are held prisoner in Hanoi or kids out of the ghetto were drafted. Some say, "well, you're a little old fashioned." Maybe I am, but I just don't think that's right. Now, whether it's character or judgment -- whatever it is -- I have a big difference here on this issue and so we'll just have to see how it plays out. But I -- I couldn't do that. And I don't think most Americans could do that. And they all say, "Well, it was a long time ago." Well, let's admit it then. Say, "I made a terrible mistake." How could you be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and have some kid say -- when you have to make a tough decision, as I did in Panama or Kuwait and then have some kid jump up and say, "Well, I'm not going to go. The Commander-in-Chief was organizing demonstrations halfway around the world during another era. So there are differences but that's about the main area where I think we have a difference. I don't know about -- we'll talk about that a little with Ross here in a bit.

I think the American people will make their own decisions on character and at a time when we have work to do and we need action I think they need to clearly understand the backgrounds of each person. I think the press can play a huge roll in making sure that the backgrounds are clearly presented in an objective way. Then, make a decision. Certainly anyone in the White House should have the character to be there. But, I think it's very important to measure when and where things occurred. Did they occur when you were a young person, in your formative years? Or did they occur while you were a senior official in the federal government? When you’re a senior official in the federal government spending billions of dollars in taxpayer’s money and you’re a mature individual and you make a mistake, then that was on our ticket. If you make it as a young man, time passes. So I would say just, you know, look at all three of us. Decide who you think will do the job. Pick that person in November because believe me, as I've said before, "The party's over and it's time for the clean-up crew." And we do have to have change and people who never take responsibility for anything when it happens on their watch and people who are in charge --

The time is up. (Laughter).

More later.

Ross gave a good answer but I've got to respond directly to Mr. Bush. You have questioned my patriotism.

You even brought some right-wing congressman into the White House to plot how to attack me for going to Russia in 1969-70, when over 50,000 other Americans did. Now, I honor your service in World War II, I honor Mr. Perot's service in uniform and the service of every man and woman who ever served, including Admiral Crowe, who was your Chairman of the joint Chiefs and who's supporting me. But when Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism he was wrong. He was wrong. And a senator from Connecticut stood up to him named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy, you were wrong to attack my patriotism. I was opposed to the war but I loved my country and we need a president who will bring this country together, not divide it. We've had enough division. I want to lead a unified country. (APPLAUSE)

Governor Clinton, can you lock in a level here tonight on where middle-income families can be guaranteed a tax cut or, at the very least, at what income level they can be guaranteed no tax increase?

There will be no tax increases--

--below 200,000--

President Bush, one minute, sir.

Mr. Perot, one minute. (APPLAUSE)

Okay. (APPLAUSE) Next question goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer, and it will be asked by Sandy Vanocur.

Well, Sander, that's a good question, and the answer is: for 40-some years we kept the peace. If you look at the cost of not keeping the peace in Europe, it would be exorbitant. We have reduced the number of troops that are deployed and going to be deployed. I have cut defense spending. And the reason we could do that is because of our fantastic success in winning the Cold War. We never would have got there if we had gone for the nuclear freeze crowd; we never would have got there if we had listened to those that wanted to cut defense spending. I think it is important that the US stay in Europe and continue to guarantee the peace. We simply cannot pull back. Now, when anybody has a spending program they want to spend money on at home, they say, well, let's cut money out of the Defense Dept. I will accept and have accepted the recommendations of 2 proven leaders, General Colin Powell and Secretary Dick Cheney. They feel that the levels we're operating at and the reductions that I have proposed are proper. And so I simply do not think we should go back to the isolation days and starting blaming foreigners. We are the sole remaining superpower, and we should be that. And we have a certain disproportionate responsibility. But I would ask the American people to understand that if we make imprudent cuts, if we go too far, we risk the peace. And I don't want to do that. I've seen what it is like to see a war, to see the burdens of a war, and I don't want to see us make reckless cuts. Because of our programs we have been able to significantly cut defense spending. But let's not cut into the muscle, and let's not cut down our insurance policy, which is participation of American forces in NATO, the greatest peace- keeping organization ever made. Today you've got problems in Europe, still bubbling along even though Europe's gone democracy's route. But we are there, and I think this insurance policy is necessary. I think it goes with world leadership, and I think the levels we've come up with are just about right.

If I'm poor and you're rich, and I can get you to defend me, that's good. But when the tables get turned, I ought to do my share. Right now we spend about $300 billion a year on defense, the Japanese spend around 30 billion in Asia, the Germans spend around 30 billion in Europe. For example, Germany will spend a trillion dollars building infrastructure over the next 10 years. It's kind of easy to do if you only have to pick up a $30-billion tab to defend your country. The European Community is in a position to pay a lot more than they have in the past. I agree with the president: when they couldn't, we should have; now that they can, they should. We sort of seem to have a desire to try to stay over there and control it. They don't want us to control it, very candidly. So it I think is very important for us to let them assume more and more of the burden and for us to bring that money back here and rebuild our infrastructure, because we can only be a superpower if we are an economic superpower; and we can only be an economic superpower if we have a growing, expanding job base. (APPLAUSE)

I agree with the general statement Mr. Bush made. I disagree that we need 150,000 troops to fulfill our role in Europe. We certainly must maintain an engagement there. There are certainly dangers there, there are certainly other trouble spots in the world which are closer to Europe than to the US. But 2 former defense secretaries recently issued a report saying that 100,000 or slightly fewer troops would be enough, including President Reagan's former defense secretary, Mr. Carlucci. Many of the military experts whom I consulted on this agreed. We're going to have to spend more money in the future on military technology and on greater mobility, greater airlift, greater sealift, the B-22 airplane. We're going to have to do some things that are quite costly. And I simply don't believe we can afford nor do we need to keep 150,000 troops in Europe given how much the Red Army, now under the control of Russia, has been cut, the arms control agreement concluded between Mr. Bush and Mr. Yeltsin, something I have applauded. I don't think we need 150,000 troops. Let me make one other point. Mr. Bush talked about taxes. He didn't tell you that he vetoed a middle class tax cut because it would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy and vetoed an investment tax credit paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Mr Perot, you talked about fairness just a minute ago and sharing the pain. As part of your plan to reduce the ballooning federal deficit, you've suggested that we raise gasoline taxes 50 cents a gallon over 5 years. Why punish the middle class consumer to such a degree?

All right, Governor Clinton, you have a minute, sir.

President Bush, one minute, sir.

All right, let's move on now to the subject of jobs. The first question goes to President Bush for 2 minutes, and John will ask that question.

I assume she was supportive of the decision on McDonnell Douglas, I assume she was supporting me on the decision to sell those airplanes. I think it's a good decision--took a little heat for it, but I think it was the correct decision to do. And we worked it out, and indeed we're moving forward all around the world in a much more peaceful way. So that one we came away with in creating jobs for the American people. I would simply say to her, look, take a look at what the president has proposed on job retraining. When you cut back on defense spending, some people are going to be thrown out of work. If you throw another 50,000 kids on the street because of cutting recklessly in troop levels, you're going to put a lot more out of work. I would say to them, look at the job retraining programs that we're proposing. Therein is the best answer to her. And another one is: stimulate investment and savings. I mean, we've got big economic problems, but we are not coming apart at the seams; we're ready for a recovery. With interest rates down and inflation down, the cruelest tax of all, caught up in a global slowdown right now, that that will change if you go with the programs I've talked about and if you help with job retraining and education. I am a firm believer that our America 2000 education problem is the answer--a little longer run; it's going to take awhile to educate. But it is a good program. So her best help for short term is job retraining, if she was thrown out of work at a defense plant. But tell her it's not all that gloomy; we're the US, we faced tough problems before. Look at the misery index when the Democrats had both the White House and the Congress. It was just right through the roof. Now, we can do better. And the way to do better is not to tax and spend but to retrain, get that control of the mandatory spending programs. I'm much more optimistic about this country than some. (APPLAUSE)

Defense industries are going to have to convert to civilian industries. Many of them are. And the sooner they start, the sooner they'll finish. And there will be a significant transition. And it's very important that we not continue to let our industrial base deteriorate. We had someone who I'm sure regrets said it in the president's staff said he didn't care whether we made potato chips or computer chips. Well, anybody that thinks about it cares a great deal. Number one, you make more making computer chips than potato chips; and, number 2, 19 out of 20 computer chips that we have in this country now come from Japan. We've given away whole industries. So as we phase these industries over, there's a whole of intellectual talent in these industries. A lot of these people in industries can be converted to the industries of tomorrow, and that's where the high-paying jobs are. We need to have a very carefully thought through phase-over. Now, see, we practice 19th century capitalism. The rest of the world practices 21st century capitalism. I can't handle that in a minute, but I hope we can get back into it later. In the rest of the world, the countries and the businesses would be working together to make this transition in an intelligent way.

We must have a transition plan to plan to convert from a defense to a domestic economy. No other nation would have cut defense as much as we already have without that. There are 200,000 people unemployed in California alone because we have cut defense without planning to retrain them and to reinvest in the technologies of the future here at home. That is what I want to do. This administration may say they have a plan, but the truth is they have not even released all the money, the paltry sum of money, that Congress appropriated. I want to take very dollar by which we reduce defense and reinvest it in technologies for the 21st century--in new transportation, in communication, in environmental clean-up technologies. Let's put the American people to work, and let's build the kind of high-tech, high-wage, high-growth economy that the American people deserve.

Mr. Perot, you talked a minute ago about rebuilding the job base. But is it true what Governor Clinton just said, that that means that unemployment will increase, that it will slow the economy? And how would you specifically use the powers of the presidency to get more people back into good jobs immediately?

Governor Clinton, one minute.

President Bush, one minute.

All right. The next question goes to Governor Clinton for 2 minutes. It will be asked by Sandy.

Well, let me say that I think that we might ought to review the terms, the way it works. But frankly, I don't think that's the problem today. We have low interest rates today. At least we have low interest rates that the Fed can control. Our long-term interest rates are still pretty high because of our deficit and because of our economic performance. And there was a terrible reaction internationally to Mr. Bush saying he was going to give us 4 more years of trickle-down economics--another across-the- board tax cut and most of it going to the wealthy, with no real guarantee of investment. But I think the important thing--the important thing-- is to use the powers the president does have on the assumption that, given the condition of this economy, we're going to keep interest rates down if we have the discipline to increase investment and reduce the debt at the same time. That is my commitment. I think the American people are ready for action. I think Congress is hungry for someone who will work with them instead of manipulate them. Someone who will not veto a bill that has an investment tax credit, middle class tax relief, research and development tax credits as Mr. Bush has done. Give me a chance to do that. I don't have to worry in the near term about the Federal Reserve. Their policies so far, it seems to me, are pretty sound.

I don't think the Fed ought to be put under the Executive Branch. There is a separation there. I think that's fine. Alan Greenspan is respected. I've had some arguments with him about the speed in which we might have lowered interest rates, but Governor Clinton, he talks about the reaction to the markets. There was a momentary fear that he might win and that the markets went phwee, down like that. So I don't think we can judge on, the stock market has been strong. It's been very strong since I've been president. And they recognize we got great difficulties, but they're also much more optimistic than the pessimists we have up here tonight. In terms of vetoing tax bills, you're darn right. I am going to protect the American taxpayer against the spend and tax Congress. And I'm going to keep on vetoing them, because I don't think we're taxed too little. I think the government's spending too much. So Governor Clinton can label it tax for the rich or anything he wants. I'm going to protect the working man by continuing to veto, and to threaten to veto until we get this new Congress, and then we're going to move forward on our plan. I’ve got to protect them.

Keep the Federal Reserve independent, but let's live in a world of reality. We live in a global economy, not a national economy. These interest rates we have now don't make any sense. We have a four trillion dollar debt, and only in America would you finance seventy percent of it five years or less. So seventy percent of our debt is five years or less. It's very interest sensitive. We have a four percent gap between what we pay for treasuries, and what Germany pays for one to five year treasuries. That gap is going to close, because the Arabs, the Japanese and folks in this country are going to start buying German treasuries because they can get more money. Every time our interest rates go up one percent, that adds 28 billion dollars to the deficit or to the debt. Whichever place you put it. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb folks, because we have totally mismanaged our country, and we had better get it back under control. Just think in your own business, if you had all of your long term problems financed short term. You'd go broke in a hurry.

Mr Perot, in the postwar coldwar environment, what should be the overriding U.S. national interest? And what can the United States do, and what can it afford to do, to defend the national interest?

Governor Clinton, one minute.

President Bush, one minute.

Next question is for Governor Clinton, and John will ask it.

I think our relationships with China are important and I don't want to isolate China, but I think it is a mistake for us to do what this Administration did when all those kids went out there carrying the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square. Mr Bush sent two people in secret to toast the Chinese leaders and basically tell them not to worry about it. They rewarded him by opening negotiations with Iran to transfer nuclear technology. That was their response to that sort of action. Now that the voices in the Congress and throughout the country have insisted that we do something about China, look at what has happened. China has finally agreed to stop sending us products made with prison labor. Not because we coddled them, but because the Administration was pushed into doing something about it. And recently the Chinese have announced they are going to lower some barriers to our products, which they ought to do since they have a 15 billion dollar trade surplus with the United States under Mr. Bush. The second biggest surplus next to Japan. So I would be firm. I would say if you want to continue as Most Favored Nation status for your government owned industries as well as your private ones, observe human rights in the future. Open your society. Recognize the legitimacy of those kids that were carrying the Statue of Liberty. If we can stand up for our economics, we ought to be able to preserve the democratic interests of the people of China. And over the long run they will be more reliable partners.

Well, the Administration was the first major country to stand up to the abuse in Tiananmen Square. We are the one that worked out the prison labor deal. We are the ones that lowered the barrier to products with Carla Hill's negotiation. I am the one that said let's keep the M.F.N. because you see China moving towards a free market economy. To do what the Congress and Governor Clinton is suggesting, you'd isolate and ruin Hong Kong. They are making some progress, not enough for us. We were the first ones to put sanctions on. We still have them on, on some things. But Governor Clinton's philosophy is isolate them. He says don't do it, but the policies he's expounding of putting conditions on M.F.N. and kind of humiliating them is not the way you make the kind of progress we are getting. And I've stood up with these people, and I understand what you have to do to be strong in this situation, and it's moving, not as fast as we'd like. But you isolate China and turn them inward, and then we've made a tremendous mistake. And I'm not going to do it. And I've had to fight a lot of people that were saying human rights, and we’re the ones that put the sanctions on and stood for it. And he can insult General Scowcroft if he wants to. They didn't go over to coddle. He went over to say we must make the very changes they're making now.

All right, it's huge. China, is a huge country, broken into many provinces. It has some very elderly leaders that will not be around too much longer. Capitalism is growing and thriving across big portions of China. Asia will be our largest trading partner in the future. It will be a growing and a closer relationship. We have a delicate, tight-wire walk that we must go through at the present time to make sure that we do not cozy up to tyrants, to make sure that they don't get the impression that they can suppress their people. But time is our friend there, because their leaders will change in not too many years, worst case, and their country is making great progress. One last point on the missiles. I don't want the American people to be confused. We have written agreements and we have some missiles that have been destroyed, but we have a huge number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that are still in place in Russia. The fact that you have an agreement is one thing. Till they're destroyed, some crazy person can either sell them or use them.

Mr. President, how can you watch the killing in Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing, or the starvation and anarchy in Somalia, and not want to use America's might, if not America's military, to try to end that kind of suffering?

Are you designing a mission,

I think if we learned anything in Vietnam is you first commit this nation before you commit the troops to the battlefield. We cannot send our people all over the world to solve every problem that comes up. This is basically a problem that is a primary concern to the European Community. Certainly we care about the people, we care about the children, we care about the tragedy. But it is inappropriate for us, just because there's a problem somewhere around the world, to take the sons and daughters of working people--and make no mistake about it, our all- volunteer armed force is not made up of the sons and daughters of the beautiful people; it's the working folks who send their sons and daughters to war, with a few exceptions. It's very unlike World War II, when FDR's sons flew missions. Everybody went. It's a different world now. It's very important that we not just, without thinking it through, just rush to every problem in the world and have our people torn to pieces.

I agree that we cannot commit ground forces to become involved in the quagmire of Bosnia or in the tribal wars of Somalia. But I think that it's important to recognize that there are things that can be done short of that, and that we do have interests there. There are, after all, 2 million refugees now because of the problems in what was Yugoslavia, the largest number since World War II, and there may be hundreds of thousands of people who will starve or freeze to death in this winter. The US should try to work with its allies and stop it. I urged the president to support this air cover, and he did--and I applaud that. I applaud the no-fly zone, and I know that he's going back to the United Nations to try to get authority to enforce it. I think we should stiffen the embargo on the Belgrade government, and I think we have to consider whether or not we should lift the arms embargo now on the Bosnians, since they are in no way in a fair fight with a heavily armed opponent bent on ethnic cleansing. We can't get involved in the quagmire, but we must do what we can.

Governor Clinton, can you tell us what your definition of the word "family" is?

President Bush, one minute.

All right, Mr. Perot, you have one minute.

New question, two-minute answer, goes to President Bush. Sandy will ask it.

No, I don't think that's the right answer. I don't believe legalizing narcotics is the answer. I just don't believe that's the answer. I do believe that there's some fairly good news out there. The use of cocaine, for example, by teenagers is dramatically down. But we've got to keep fighting on this war against drugs. We're doing a little better in interdiction. Many of the countries below that used to say, well, this is the US' problem -- if you'd get the demand down, then we wouldn't have the problem -- are working cooperatively with the DEA and the military. We're using the military more now in terms of interdiction. Our funding for recovery is up, recovering the addicts.

Anytime you think you want to legalize drugs, go to a neonatal unit --if you can get in. They're between 100 and 200% capacity up and down the East Coast. And the reason is crack babies being born, babies in the hospital 42 days. Typical cost to you and me is $125,000. Again and again and again, the mother disappears in 3 days, and the child becomes a ward of the state because he's permanently and genetically damaged.

Like Mr. Perot, I have held crack babies in my arms. But I know more about this, I think, than anybody else up here because I have a brother who's a recovering drug addict. I'm very proud of him.

Mr. Perot, racial division continues to tear apart our great cities, the last episode being this spring in Los Angeles. Why is this still happening in America, and what would you do to end it?

Governor Clinton, one minute.

Mr. President, one minute.

Time, Mr. President. All right. Let's go now to another subject, the subject of health. The first question for 2 minutes is to President Bush, and John will ask it.

Coming from the political process. We have increased funding for AIDS. We've doubled it on research and on every other aspect of it. My request for this year was $4.9 billion for AIDS -- ten times as much per AIDS victim as per cancer victim.

First, I think Mary Fisher was a great choice. We're lucky to have her heading the commission. Secondly, I think one thing that if I were sent to do the job, I would sit down with FDA, look at exactly where we are. Then I would really focus on let's get these things out. If you're going to die, you don't have to go through this ten-year cycle that FDA goes through on new drugs. 2nd thing, there are not many times in your life when you get to talk to a whole country. But let me just say to all of America: if you hate people, I don't want your vote. That's how strongly I feel about it.

Over 150,000 Americans have died of AIDS. Well over a million and a quarter Americans are HIV-positive. We need to put one person in charge of the battle against AIDS to cut across all the agencies that deal with it. We need to accelerate the drug approval process. We need to fully fund the act named for that wonderful boy Ryan White to make sure we're doing everything we can on research and treatment.

Mr. Perot, even if you've got what people say are the guts to take on changes in the most popular, the most sacred of the entitlements, Medicare, people say you haven't a prayer of actually getting anything passed in Washington.

Governor, one minute.

One minute, President Bush.

New question, it is for Governor Clinton, 2 -minute answer. Sandy will ask it.

Mr. Bush made that charge.

I thought the Oregon plan should at least have been allowed to be tried because at least the people in Oregon were trying to do something. Let me go back to the main point, Sandy. Mr. Bush is trying to run against Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter and everybody in the world but me in this race. I have proposed a managed competition plan for health care. I will say again: you cannot control health care costs simply by cutting Medicare. Look what's happened. The federal government has cut Medicare and Medicaid in the last few years, states have cut Medicaid -- we've done it in Arkansas under budget pressures. But what happens? More and more people get on the rolls as poverty increases. If you don't control the health care costs of the entire system, you cannot get control of it.

Well, I don't have time in 30 seconds, or whatever -- a minute -- to talk about our health care reform plan. The Oregon plan made some good sense, but it's easy to dismiss the concerns of the disabled. As president I have to be sure that those waivers, which we're approving all over the place, are covered under the law. Maybe we can work it out. But the Americans with Disabilities Act, speaking about sound and sensible civil rights legislation, was the most foremost piece of legislation passed in modern times, and so wedo have something more than a technical problem.

We got the most expensive health care system in the world; it ranks behind 15 other nations when we come to life expectancy, and 22 other nations when we come to infant mortality. So we don't have the best.

Well, it's been a privilege to be able to talk to the American people tonight. I make no bones about it. I love this country. I love the principle it's founded on. I love the people here. I don't like to see the country's principles violated. I don't like to see the people in a deteriorating economy in a deteriorating country because our government has lost touch with the people.

I'd like to thank the people of St. Louis and Washington University, the Presidential Debate Commission and all those who made this night possible. And I'd like to thank those of you who are watching.

Let me tell you a little what it's like to be president. In the Oval Office, you can't predict what kind of crisis is going to come up. You have to make tough calls. You can't be on one hand this way and one hand another. You can't take different positions on these difficult issues. And then you need a philosophical -- I'd call it a philosophical underpinning. Mine for foreign affairs is democracy and freedom, and look at the dramatic changes around the world. The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is no more and we're working with a democratic country. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Baltics are free.